Sentinel sign in standalone anterior cervical fusion: Outcomes and fusion rate

Successful fusion versus pseudarthrosis after spinal instrumentation: a comprehensive imaging review

PURPOSE

Following spinal instrumentation and fusion, differentiating between successful arthrodesis and pseudoarthrosis on imaging can be challenging. Interpretation of such examinations requires understanding both the expected evolution of postoperative findings and the subtle indicators of pseudoarthrosis across multiple imaging modalities. Due to this level of intricacy, many clinicians lack familiarity with the subject beyond the more rudimentary concepts.

METHODS

This review provides an in-depth overview of the imaging of the post-operative spine, with particular emphasis on differentiating between pseudoarthrosis and arthrodesis.

RESULTS

A comprehensive overview of imaging of the post-operative spine is given, including the most common imaging modalities utilized, the expected post-operative findings, imaging findings in pseudoarthrosis, and imaging definitions of fusion.

CONCLUSION

Differentiating between pseudoarthrosis and arthrodesis in the postoperative spine is complex, and requires a robust understanding of various findings across many different modalities.

Decreasing radiation dose with FluoroLESS Standalone Anterior Cervical Fusion

Background

Radiation dose continues to be a concern especially in the field of spine surgery, where anterior and posterior instrumentation is frequently utilized to treat multiple pathologies. The authors aim to demonstrate the feasibility of decreasing the radiation dose in standalone anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Methods

Standalone ACDF (S-ACDF) with 48 consecutive patients (Group 1) with a comparison control group with ACDF with an anterior cervical plate (ACP) of 49 patients (Group 2). Fluoroscopy was performed for positioning, identification of level, placement of the implant, each screw, final AP and lateral images for the first 20 patients in Group 1. Screw placement could then be performed confidently based on cosine rule of cosine (Ѳ) = adj/hyp.

Results

Forty-eight patients in Group 1 (S-ACDF) and 49 patients in Group 2 (ACDF-ACP). Statistical significance not demonstrated for age, BMI or gender, P=0.691, 0.947 and 0.286 respectively. Mean radiation dose in group 1 of 17.9±6.6 mAs and 0.8±0.3 mSv was significantly less compared to group 2 which was 29.8±5.4 and 1.3±0.2 mSv, P<0.001. The average radiation dose for single-level fusion in Group 1 was 12.5±3.5 mAs and 0.5±0.1 mSv this is compared to Group 2 of 27.8±3.9 mAs and 1.2±0.2 mSv, P=0.001. The average radiation dose for two level fusion in Group 1 was 22.2±5.1 mAs and 0.9±0.2 mSv this is compared to Group 2 of 33.9±6.0 and 1.4±0.3 mSv, P=0.001.

Conclusions

In the outpatient setting, S-ACDF has shown a statistically significant intergroup difference in overall radiation dose, as well as single and two-level fusions, (P<0.001). We conclude that S-ACDF can decrease overall radiation exposure to patients.

Cervical disc herniation: which surgery?

PURPOSE

Cervical disc herniation is a common pathology. It can be treated by different surgical procedures. We aimed to list and analyzed every available surgical option. We focused on the comparison between anterior cervical decompression and fusion and cervical disc arthroplasty.

RESULTS

The anterior approach is the most commonly used to achieve decompression and fusion by the mean of autograft or cage that could also be combined with anterior plating. Anterior procedures without fusion have shown good outcomes but are limited by post-operative cervicalgia and kyphotic events. Posterior cervical foraminotomy achieved good outcomes but is not appropriate in a case of a central hernia or ossification of the posterior ligament. Cervical disc arthroplasty is described to decrease the rate of adjacent segment degeneration. It became very popular during the last decades with numerous studies with different implant device showing encouraging results but it has not proved its superiority to anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Anterior bone loss and heterotopic ossification are still to be investigated.

CONCLUSION

Anterior cervical decompression and fusion remain the gold standard for surgical treatment of cervical disc herniation.